Production and distribution of City Club forums and ideastream public media are made possible by PNC and the United Black Fund of Greater Cleveland, Inc.. Good afternoon and welcome to the City Club of Cleveland, where we are devoted to conversations of consequence that help democracy thrive.

It's Friday, March 15th.

And I'm Molly Walsh, vice president of the City Club Board of directors and principal and owner of Stand Up Consulting.

It is my honor to introduce today's speaker, Justice Janet C. Protasiewicz.

iSay, let's get that right.

I watched a YouTube video to learn how to say that.

So from here on out, it's going to be justice.

Janet, if that's okay.

Justice Janet in April of last year was elected to serve her first term on the Wisconsin Supreme Court with the 2024 election on the horizon.

National attention will once again be drawn to swing states in the Great Lakes region.

It's no understatement that Wisconsin has firmly established itself as a battleground state.

In fact, four of the six past presidential elections have been decided by fewer than 23,000 votes.

In Wisconsin.

Today, the political stakes have never been higher.

Many of Wisconsin's politics echo what we are seeing here in Ohio right down to a tense dispute over Wisconsin's Republican drawn legislative maps, which were overturned in December.

Justice Janet took the bench after a race that garnered national attention.

Her accession was viewed as a liberal shift for the court, the first in 15 years and as a check on a long standing conservative grip on the state's government.

Prior to her election Justice Pro to say what spent nearly a decade on the bench.

As a circuit court judge in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin.

Before her time as judge, she served more than 25 years as assistant district attorney, where she prosecuted serious crimes throughout her career.

Justice Janet has been deeply involved in the community and has held many leadership positions.

Also joining us is Lee Fisher, Dean and the Joseph C Hostetler.

Baker-Hostetler, chair in law at Cleveland University, Cleveland State University College of Law.

Dean Fisher.

Dean Fisher brings a lifetime of experience as moderator for today's forum.

Having served in the Ohio Legislature as Ohio attorney general and as lieutenant governor to former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland.

If you have a question for our speaker, you can text it to 3305415794.

That's 3305415794.

And City Club staff will try to work it into the second half of the program.

Members and Friends of the City Club of Cleveland please join me in welcoming Justice Janet and Dean Fisher.

Welcome, everybody.

It's an honor to be here today with, I think it's fair to say, the best known and most famous state Supreme Court judge in the world.

Now, having said that, the second best known Supreme Court justice is also here today, and that is I have three guests that I'm going to take the liberty of introducing today.

First, of course, Supreme Court Justice of Ohio.

Michael Donnelly, would you stand, please?

Q And we have two members of the state legislature here today.

State Representative Terrence Upchurch, right over there, and my other guests today, state representative Bride Rose Sweeney.

Well, let's talk about how you've become the best known Supreme Court justice in the world.

Your election attracted national attention, and you won by a very comfortable margin, even though a lot of people thought you might not.

How did you win?

Well, I'll tell you this.

We worked really, really hard and there was no place in the state of Wisconsin that I didn't go.

You name it.

I was there.

I was working full time and I was campaigning full time.

But more than that, I had an incredible team behind me.

And the people that worked on and ran the campaign were incredible.

We were able to do robust fundraising, which is what you need to be able to do to run the type of race that we ran.

$45 million, I heard.

Yeah.

Total on.

Top totals.

Maybe a little more.

Oh, really?

Okay.

Maybe a little more.

But we were able to do things like penetrate rural areas of the state of Wisconsin that in some of these races, people had not been able to reach.

So we were able to do all of that.

But additionally, it was so interesting to me how much people cared about the message and how much the message resonated.

I was surprised, to put it mildly, at how interested people were in the issues, and the issues that kept coming up over and over were the gerrymandering in our state.

Whether or not a woman has a right to make her own reproductive health choices, and whether or not the results of the 2024 election were going to be fair.

You know how we were going to look at that?

And so I started off with broadly talking about my views, and I don't think that that was done before I broadly talked about them, didn't make any promises to anybody about what I would do, but broadly made sure that the electorate, you know, knew where I was coming from and what I thought about some of these issues.

And I think that was kind of refreshing for people.

They were interested in hearing about that.

They were interested in hearing where people stand.

I'd be in very, very small areas in the state of Wisconsin where people would all be wearing T-shirts that say fair maps.

And as we traveled one day, I felt kind of bad for the, quote, normal people in this restaurant.

We are in this adorable restaurant in viral cloth.

And I was there at about lunchtime to give my stump speech and meet with people.

And I did say, I apologize to all of you who are here just trying to have a nice lunch.

And I made my remarks and this woman raised her hand and said, I'm from Iowa.

We're right across the border, but I'm texting everybody I know here to make sure that they vote in this particular race because of how high the stakes were.

So I think that when we started off, we thought the race might have a bit of attention.

We never dreamed it would have the type of attention that in the end it did have.

And it certainly didn't hurt us that we were a midterm election with not a lot of other things going on.

So we were you know, we got a lot of attention for that as well.

You know, in Ohio, if you're running for Supreme Court as just as Donnelly knows, the legislature decided that they wanted a D or an R next to the name.

In other words, partizan in your state.

However, it's nonpartisan.

So here's my question.

If you had had to run under the same rules of Ohio, D, would you still have won?

I think I would have still won.

And here's why.

I think people were so tired of what they considered to be extreme politics in the state of Wisconsin and rubber stamping what particular, I would say, far right extreme groups wanted and expected.

I think people were so tired of that.

And I told people, listen, I wanted to be fair.

I wanted to be impartial, uphold the Constitution and follow the law.

And I will always have an open mind.

I know that as we sit here today, we have rendered a number of decisions, but I've also been part of some decisions that maybe the state Democratic Party didn't like.

And I hope and such as allowing Captain Phillips to be on our presidential ballot right now.

He has since suspended his campaign in our primaries, not for a few weeks regardless.

But, you know, I mean, that was a decision that the entire court, per curiam, you know, rendered that he had done what he needed to do to be on the ballot.

And I hope that it's refreshing to the people of the state of Wisconsin that we're going to be fair no matter where the chips fall.

Right.

We're going to be fair.

I'm going to uphold the Constitution, follow the law and do my utmost every single day.

And what I tell people is when I come into that courtroom and I sit down, I'm really standing up for the people of Wisconsin, which is why I got into this race to stand up for the people of Wisconsin.

I think we're really, really tired of all the extremism.

You know, I suspect that we're going to be spending most of this hour today talking about redistricting because it's a hot issue in your state and a hot issue in ours.

But before we get to that, it's my recollection that your opponent wanted to talk about one issue and one issue only.

That was crime.

And you want to talk about a number of issues, one of which was reproductive health.

Talk about that.

Well, you know, as I indicated when I was campaigning, I told people very broadly what my values were in regard to reproductive health.

I met with lots of groups about that.

I had a lot of support in that regard.

I've got to be very careful what I say here today.

It is highly likely that that issue is going to come to our Supreme Court.

So I have to be very careful about what I say, because every single case that comes to our court, I believe it's my duty.

I am also bound to be able to sit on that case.

That's fair.

So I don't want to say anything that's going to put me in a position of potentially having to recuse or remove myself from a case.

But he did make crime a central issue and cherry picked a handful of cases where he thought that my sentences were too light.

And, you know, I said in homicide and sexual assault court for three years, I handed down some really severe sentences in those courts.

But guess what?

Not everybody goes to prison every day.

So when you you know, you weigh the factors and you weigh the factors that a judge has to look at in sentencing, you know, you look at how serious the crime is, the need to protect the public, the character of the defendant.

Sometimes people get a second chance.

Right.

And he was able to handpick those cases, including a case where the victim was asking me to do a particular thing.

And I actually pulled the lawyers into chambers and I said, the victim's on board with this.

And they said, yes, she is.

And we went ahead and I render that sentence.

And that was used against me to the point that they used a commercial saying that I wasn't fair to this victim.

And that victim actually came forward and said, that's not what happened in that commercial, got pulled.

So this was you know, it was a rough, brutal campaign.

And, you know, people take things out of context.

But certainly, if you look at the way the winds are blowing and what public opinion is, I think he thought I'm only guessing that that was his strongest method of attack.

Right.

Yeah.

Well, let's move for a moment to that issue of redistricting.

And it's interesting because Ohio, as you know, is probably moved from blue to purple to red.

And today, by most accounts, where about a 56% state that is considered Republican, but your state is considered more 50%, 50%.

In other words, purple right down the line.

And in our legislature, about 68% of the legislature is Republican.

7060 8% of the House, 78% of the Senate.

So that's still a skew from a 56%.

You have a similar arrangement in in your state where over 60% of the state legislature is, in fact, Republican, but it's a 50% state.

Talk about that.

So, again, I have to be very careful what I talk about.

But what I will tell you is this.

We heard a gerrymandering case and we heard oral arguments on it in fall.

And it was brought to us on a number of issues, including the fact that our state constitution requires that our state districts be contiguous.

And if you take a look at the decision we rendered in that case, I think it's fair to talk about the fact we rendered a decision saying, hey, our maps are not constitutional, they're not contiguous.

In the end, when you read the decision, what it basically says is, best case scenario, the legislature and the governor figure this out.

That's not our job to be drawing maps.

Best case scenario, figure it out.

If you don't figure it out, we're going to figure out the maps.

So they did, in fact, figure out those maps.

And I think that that is the best.

It means that the branches of government are working.

I don't think that anybody was particularly thrilled about it and the Republican Party, but they came up with maps that worked.

They adopted the maps that our governor, Governor Evers, proposed.

So the Republican legislature approved those.

The governor signed those.

And we didn't have to take furth We also were then brought a case on our maps, our congressional maps.

And I declined to participate in that case because it was kind of a redo of one of the cases that had just been in front of the court.

And when I was campaigning, I made sure that I was grounding every single thing I said in the law and indicating I was going to follow the law.

But what I said about our congressional maps was, hey, that case that our Wisconsin Supreme Court just rendered, look at that case.

You know, I agree with the dissent in that case.

And so that exact same case was brought to us.

And I thought, given the fact that I didn't participate when it was there initially, it would be inappropriate for me to participate in that case at all.

So like I said, I need to be careful about what I talk about.

I anticipate that at some point somebody may bring the Congressional Maps case back, which is why I'd like to be able to talk a little bit more candidly about some of these issues.

But I really just can't because I can't put myself in a position where I won't be hearing them.

But it is interesting that although the court, by a 4 to 3 vote, threw out the redistricting, the current redistricting process, and then the governor stepped in and put in a new map on the congressional redistricting.

Actually, it was a decision probably made the Republicans happy because the Republicans controlled the congressional delegation, which you might argue shows us an element of fairness.

Well, and I hope so.

And, you know, Madison The Capitol Times wrote an editorial indicating that they thought it was unfair, that I didn't stay on that case.

And what I pledged to the people of the state of Wisconsin the entire time that I was campaigning is that I will be honest, I will be transparent.

I will uphold the law.

I will uphold the Constitution.

I will not be a rubber stamp for anybody.

And I hope that that decision on my part not to participate in that particular case sends that message to everybody.

And what I have found as I've gone around the state is that that is exactly what people want.

They want a court that's going to be fair and impartial.

They are so tired of the, you know, the rubber stamping.

And I don't know if you know this here.

You know, I was the subject of a lot of talk about potentially being impeached shortly after I took office.

And I would go out and if I'd be recognized, I actually had people stop me who said and one man in particular, and he was crying and he said, I didn't vote for you.

And if I could do anything, I would change that, because what they're doing is so unfair.

They're trying to overturn a legal, fair election.

And I think that's the message we really want to get across.

We're done with all of that.

We're done with that hyper partizanship.

We're done with that extremism.

Let's let's take the court in our hands and let's do our job.

Moments after you were sworn in, there was an effort to impeach you.

Right.

And then to force you to recuse yourself.

Recuse yourself from the legislative redistricting cases.

Correct.

And you were able to withstand both.

But that's a lot of pressure.

And in a day and age, when judges of all stripes, both Republican and Democrat at all levels, are under increasing pressure, particularly even threats to their life.

How do you deal with those kinds of issues?

I'll tell you this.

When I worked in the circuit court, I had a very good idea of what that job was going to be like.

I don't know what your county courts are here, what they're like here, but I know Milwaukee County, that whole Milwaukee County Circuit Court was like a high school that you don't graduate from.

Right.

Everybody knows everybody.

You know, everybody from the clerks to the court reporters to the lawyers to the people who sell your coffee.

To the young man who shines people's shoes.

Everybody knows everybody.

And you're in and out of those courtrooms all day, every day.

So when I decided to run for judge, I had a pretty good idea what a circuit court judge does.

I had a pretty good feel for it.

I didn't have a good feel for what this role was, except that I wanted to be fair and impartial and serve the people of the state.

So it was an incredible learning curve.

So at the same time that I'm having this learning curve or I'm trying to do the best job I possibly can do, and the job I was elected to do, I was dealing with potentially being impeached and I was dealing with having to offer a recusal decision on our state legislative maps that were potentially withstand SCOTUS, United States Supreme Court scrutiny.

And that was my biggest concern at the time.

We have to write and offer the best recusal decision that we can offer.

And I have to navigate potentially being impeached while I'm learning a new job and, you know, commuting back and forth to a new city.

So and I'll tell you, just as an aside, there's little things that I didn't even know that also kind of stick out in my head know when the seven of us there are seven justices on our Supreme Court when the seven of us are kind of congregating behind the bench.

And it's very majestic.

And they say all rise and we come out.

I didn't realize that the least junior person, i.e.

me, is expected to hold the door for my colleagues.

Now I'm a person who respects tradition.

If somebody had told me that, of course I would have been holding that door.

But I didn't.

And I walked right through.

And then I was reprimanded pretty severely for that.

It's so it's like even the little things that you don't think about, I'm thinking, you know, we're trying to deal with all of these cases.

And so when I say the learning curve was huge, it was huge.

In Ohio, we have a tradition of opening the door for the justice.

So we're going to do it for you as you walk out today that there's a lot of mystery about what happens in Supreme Courts.

US, Ohio, Wisconsin.

Let's get behind the drapes.

What happens?

How do you make these decisions?

Does you but you and your fellow justices.

We put a lot of work in at the front end.

So, for example, next week we are hearing four oral arguments in our state to on Tuesday and two on Wednesday and a variety of really interesting issues.

So for months we have been working on those cases.

My house looks like a tornado headed.

I do some work off of my computer, but it's easier for me to read off of real paper.

So I have big binders all over my house with everything that happened.

You know, the transcripts from the circuit court, the decisions from the appellate court, all the briefs.

So we spend an incredible amount of time on the front end thinking about the case.

And then we spend a lot of time crafting our questions for the attorneys who are going to be appearing in front of the Supreme Court to really get to the heart of the matter.

And if we think we're leaning one way, let's make sure we ask those really hard hitting questions to make sure that we're kind of thinking about it the right way.

And hopefully your mind is open enough that you can, you know, switch gears if we realize that I guess I thought this about an issue, but I can certainly take a look at it another way.

So we do this incredible amount of work on the front end.

Then we have the oral arguments and I don't know if any of you have seen oral arguments in front of a Supreme Court.

It's somewhat chaotic and it's got to be chaotic for the lawyers because they stand up at their podium and they start to start to make their remarks in this gorgeous, gorgeous, beautiful hearing room.

And we immediately start peppering them with questions so they can't even necessarily get through their prepared remarks.

They probably don't get through many of their prepared remarks.

And we're asking them all sorts of questions, all seven of us.

Sometimes it feels like, I'm sure, to them all at once.

And then when we're done with the question and we'll hear then the second argument and we take a break and then we go into what's called conference and we talk about it among ourselves and we might generally have a consensus at that point about who's voting which way on a case.

Sometimes you might want a little bit more time, but I think that the amount of work that we put in at the front kind of really assists in which way we're going to be voting when it comes time to vote in Wisconsin.

If then we have decided in conference and we have our seven votes and people have say it's a 4 to 3 decision, who's writing that majority decision?

How do you think we do it?

We have a big hat with the numbers and everybody's number goes in the hat and the half gets shook up and the numbers are drawn.

And that's another little thing, I guess.

I'll tell you behind the drape, we have numbers.

Okay, I'm number seven because I'm the least senior.

So number seven sits right next to the door.

So if there's a knock on the door during conference because those are all confidential, number seven gets up and answers it.

There's any kind of problem.

Number seven deals with it.

And then and then as the years go on, you know, people's numbers shift.

So it's it's kind of fun to watch because somebody might be like, wait, am I still number four or am I number three when they're shaking up the hat and the number is pulled out?

And, you know, so that's kind of I had no idea that that's how they decide who writes for the jury.

They I prefer to call you just as Janet as opposed to just a seventh.

You know, there are six year terms, just as Donnelly and other members of the House are six years term.

But I was actually quite surprised to find out that the term of Wisconsin Supreme Court judges is ten years.

That's unusual.

So here's my question.

I've always thought that the longer the term, the more likely someone will be not partizan, regardless of what party they might have been affiliated with some time in their lives.

Is there any chance that people actually will be less partizan on the Supreme Court?

This despite the fact that they may have been member of a party at a prior time because they have a ten year term as opposed to a shorter term.

That's an interesting question.

I think that if you are not an extremist who is going to rubber stamp every issue that comes before you.

Yes, it certainly gives you the ability with a longer term to be able to do what you think is more fair and appropriate in a case.

I think that the pressures may be different with a longer term.

I hadn't thought about that.

That's a very interesting question.

We had six year terms on the circuit court in Milwaukee there infrequently, infrequently contested races, unless you're me, because I do everything the hard way.

But normal people don't have contested races on the circuit court.

Well, I know in my own case, if I had a ten year term, I would have lost fewer elections.

So I would love to have had a ten year term of it.

And it's not too late to change that in Ohio.

I want to go because, for example, bravo, Sweeney can't run again.

She's term limited.

She should have ten years easily, don't you think?

I think so.

Okay.

I think it's time now to go to the audience, because that's what the city club is famous for, and that is asking questions.

So Molly's going to come back up and we're going to have questions from the audience if there's any awkward silence, which I don't think has ever happened in the history of the City Club.

Then I get to ask another question.

Okay, Molly, back to you.

Are about to be in the audience Q&A for our live stream and radio audience or those just joining.

I'm Molly Walsh, vice president of the City Club Board of directors and principal and owner of Stand Out Consulting.

Today we are listening to Janet Proto say with justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court and Lee Fisher Dean and the Joseph C Hostetler, Baker Hostetler, chair in law at Cleveland State University College of Law.

We welcome questions from everyone city club members, guests and those joining via our live stream at City Club Dawg or Radio broadcast at 89.7 W WKSU Ideastream Public Media.

If you'd like to text a question for our speaker, please text it to 3305415794.

That's 3305415794.

And City Club staff will try to work it into the program.

May we have the first question, please?

I'm curious if you could share with us your thoughts on age limit either for a justice, state, federal.

A president.

Hypothetically, of course.

Hypothetically and my own personal opinions.

I don't believe in age limits, but that's a personal opinion.

I think that many people age differently and people should be able to make that decision and let the electorate weigh in on that.

I that's just a personal opinion.

Hi.

Sorry.

Judges are supposed to be different than politicians, but of course, in many states like Wisconsin and Ohio, judges are elected and in effect, become politicians.

What is your view about the merits selection of judges versus electing judges, understanding that the devil is in the details regarding the merit selection of judges?

Thank you.

Yeah, that's a really, really good question.

And I think that it hits home with there would be some people who will be incredibly good judges and justices, but maybe not great politicians.

Right.

And then you've got some people who are really good politicians who maybe don't make a good judge or justice.

But I'll tell you this, when I went around the state of Wisconsin and I talked to people, I learned things from the people around the state that will impact me differently.

And that's why I think electing our justices is really the way to go.

I was in one county where people were talking to me about their small family farms, and I was listening to a man telling me so movingly what the forever chemicals are doing to his farm and how this is his progeny.

And it gets passed down generation after generation.

And when those chemicals come and kill their livestock and impede their ability to successfully harvest their agriculture, what it's done to them.

And I thought, you know, if I were sitting there reading a brief about this without understanding the bona fide real impact it has on a human being, I think I might look at it differently.

Right.

And so I think the fact that when you do a campaign like this and you hit so many people all over and you hear things differently, I was on a number of the reservations in our state, and I was talking to Native Americans about what their concerns are, and they were telling me about the waterways and how important that is to them and just having somebody listen to them.

I don't think I had anybody say to me, Well, you promise me this outcome if I say I vote for you.

Basically, people just wanted to know that they'd be heard and they want that person who is going to be making these really, you know, these decisions that are going to have such statewide impact.

They want them to know how they feel.

So as much as I think that, yes, there are many, many, many fine people who could be selected for these roles due to a selection committee.

I think there's nothing like being out there and really earning it and really talking to people and understanding what their thoughts and concerns are.

At the top of the hour, we learned that Wisconsin has nonpartisan judicial races and our state, the state of Ohio, has partizan races by the political parties endorsing the candidates.

And there's a growing concern there should be that the influence of the political parties affects the nonpartizan practice of a judge.

And you spoke broadly about the concerns you had in your state when you were running.

Broadly, as you have to.

When you're a candidate, are you able to speak in your experience about the influence of political parties on judges and also the efficacy of this practice?

Just one slight correction, and that is statewide.

You're right that it's partizan.

But interestingly, the legislature decided that even though it's partizan statewide, it would not be partizan countywide.

So on the county level, judges don't run with a party label.

Statewide, they do.

You figure out behind the scenes why that might be happen, because Cuyahoga happens to be Democratic.

Go ahead.

So I can only speak for myself.

And I mean, if anybody's follow the race that I was in at all, it's pretty clear I was helped substantially by the Democratic Party.

So, you know, it's not pull any punches here.

That being said, I as I've told everybody, I'm here to apply the law, to follow the Constitution and do everything I can.

To be fair and impartial.

And as I've indicated earlier, you need people like that and people who will not be a rubber stamp and who won't be bought and sold based on the fact that parties are being involved in these campaigns.

I think I've just indicated that with the Dean Phillips situation and wanting to be on the ballot for president in the state of Wisconsin, the Democrat Party did not put his name forward.

I subscribed to the belief that he had met the legal requirements to do so in order to put him on our ballot.

As I've indicated earlier, I have had some Democrats probably upset with me for not sitting on their case with the congressional maps.

And that's because I didn't think it was the right thing to do.

So I can only speak for myself.

I think, you know, what might affect different people differently.

But like I said, being fair and impartial is really breathing that fresh air back into our Supreme Court in the state of Wisconsin.

That's really what my goal was the entire time.

And.

Madam Justice, thank you for being here.

Thank you.

The I think the judiciary branch is often exempt from the sort of political storms of the legislative and executive branch on the idea that they're ruling on the rule of law.

They're supposed to be balanced and outside of politics, if you will.

But every decision has a constituency.

And whatever you decide, it's gotta be some people like what you do, and some people don't like what you do.

But now and then it appears as though some courts stray from that balance and enter into political domains and rightly ask your opinion.

But in my my own opinion, I think the Supreme Court of Alabama Supreme Court, Texas, even our United States Supreme Court may have left the neutral zone and into some more partizan ways.

My question is, though if a court should do the US Supreme Court should do that, what recourse to the does the assistant or the public have to restore that balance to get the court to move back towards rule of law in a way from rubber stamping, as you put it?

Well, I think what the public has to do is be aware.

And the most critical thing, the thing that levels the playing field, is that everybody's vote is counted exactly the same.

So we have these races from municipal judge to circuit court and appellate courts and then to the state supreme court.

I think people need to look really carefully at who's running and listen to their messaging and make sure that they are electing people who are going to follow the law and aren't out there with a political agenda.

I think that's critical.

We had, I think, record breaking voter turnout in our state Supreme Court race last April.

Well, I wish it would be like that everywhere in every race, because all of these races are so important.

I think the most critical the most critical thing is that people get out there and that they vote and that they're educated on who they're voting for and.

Judge, thank you so much for being here today.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court races have been some of the most expensive in the country over the last few cycles.

And I think you mentioned the.

Number 45 million.

Could you please speak to what you feel, the influences.

Of that money, what the danger is in having so much money spent on the Supreme Court races?

So, you know, it was very interesting when I started thinking about getting into this race for the reasons that we talked about.

We sat down and talked about the most one of the most important components, sadly, the fundraising issue.

And how expensive is this race going to be?

When I had a circuit court race, those races are primarily self-funded and people might that, you know, your friends and family might come to one of your coffees or a fund raiser and make some contributions.

And so when we first started talking about this race, my husband said, we can't afford that race.

You know, you know, that race is going to cost, what, like a couple million dollars.

That's what we all fight a year in advance, that it was probably going to be a 2 to $3 million race.

None of us had any idea it was going to morph into what it turned into.

So, yes, the races are extremely expensive.

We did our best to work with in all the rules, to fundraise as best as we could so that we could get our message out.

And because we were able to do that, we were able to get our message out in places that maybe had been ignored in the past, and we were able to do that really well.

I think it's really, really comes down to the person.

If you are getting much money from one side or the other, are you going to be able to maintain being fair and impartial?

Are you going to be able to maintain that?

And, you know, I saw some of the fliers and commercials that were out opposing me.

And all I can say is, thank goodness we had that money to be able to come back that now at the beginning of a race, it's very hard to fundraise because we started year in advance and people aren't really all that interested.

And you know, I would make phone call after phone call, we would do call time fundraising.

And, you know, as we moved on, you know, and people started to figure out this race is really important and here's why.

And we need to be able to get the message out and here's why.

And we got past our November gubernatorial race and then suddenly we became the race people were focused on.

It became a lot easier to be able to, you know, maneuver and get out and make sure we got our message all over the state.

Given your fundraising prowess, would you be willing to help Dan Northrup raise the remaining 2 million in the cup again?

Okay.

Good afternoon.

I'm so glad you're here.

Thank you.

I taught school for many years.

I usually have a school teacher question.

Okay.

If you were speaking to a group of high school students, what would you say are the most important characteristics they need to start practicing now?

In order to be effective in your position.

They need to work hard and have an open mind.

I mean, you really I mean, I hate that mantra of work hard and things are going to come to you, but you have got to work really hard.

I speak to high school groups a lot and the questions that they ask me are really well thought out, well grounded.

You can tell that they have a lot of interest in the issues that are going on around us.

I'd say they should get involved in the community, continue to know what's going on and work hard.

I mean, Madam Justice.

Thank.

You.

This is kind of an inside question and maybe unfair to you, but I really haven't been on the appellate bench that long.

But I had heard.

For many.

Years and I am still a practicing attorney, that oral argument is something you really can't win your case.

You can only lose it.

How effective do you find oral argument after having all the briefs, all the record and of course, friend of the court briefs to inform you as to what the issues are.

Extremely helpful and extremely persuasive because the questions that we have left that we've honed down are the that we really need the answers to in order to either confirm or change our mind and a decision.

So those questions are really, really important.

It's like when people would say to me, you know, we kind of we hear those phrases and people would say to me, I would never have a jury trial.

I don't trust 12 jurors.

And I was a circuit court judge long enough to know that I was doing, you know, presiding over jury trials in domestic violence court once or twice a week, drug court every week, homicide court every week.

And I would tell people I know and I would hope you would agree, I said I never saw a panel of 12 people not want to get to the right answer.

They might get that jury summons and be like, oh, I've got to go there and deal with parking and get there and everything.

But once they're there and they're sworn in and they're impaneled, I've never seen a panel not take it seriously from the least serious disorderly conduct to, of course, the most frightening homicide case.

I've never seen them not want to get to the right answer.

And I'd also say that virtually all the time agree with their verdicts.

So you end up with people who tell you they don't believe in the jury system.

Is that the professor there?

That's actually my predecessor, former Dean Ha.

And in 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court on at least five separate occasions wrote opinions declaring the legislative and congressional maps to be unconstitutional.

One of those decisions was written by Justice Donnelly, notwithstanding, in those decisions, the Ohio Redistricting Commission and the General Assembly both refused to comply with those decisions.

Those bodies included a former Ohio Supreme Court justice, a former Ohio attorney general and current governor and others.

So my question is, it seems to me that this evinced a disrespect for the rule of law.

So if that conclusion is fair, what suggestions, if any, do you have for us poor folks in Ohio who labor under a regime that does not properly respect the rule of law?

That question I think I'm going to have to leave to the people of Ohio.

Would you be willing would you be willing to move to Ohio and and run for the House Supreme Court?

So I spend a bit of time here in Cleveland because my sister in law, John and my brother Steve, live here in Cleveland.

I was here in June.

And I know all my favorite places to go out to eat and enjoy myself.

So I do spend some time here.

So we've had some questions about electing judges and partizan elections and the best methods of picking judges.

But in an era when, as you say, applying the law is seen itself as a partizan activity, what, if anything, do you see as the responsibility of the courts as a government branch themselves to try to affect public opinion on how they view the application of law by the courts?

Because if people believe the courts are partizan, then they may as well be right.

And that's a really good question.

I think the bottom line is making sure that those of us who are there and are working hard take that oath that we took seriously every single day to be fair and impartial.

And guess what?

I'm not always going to I mean, I'm not going to make the right happy a bunch of the time.

I'm not going to make the left happy a bunch of the time.

I'm going to be out there being as fair as I can possibly be.

And the chips fall where they may.

You know, we follow the law, we uphold the Constitution and stare decisis, that being the cases that have come before, obviously, we are looking at to ensure that we're getting to the right legal decision.

But I think people need to be in tuned to these races and listen to the messaging and figure out who is going to really uphold the Constitution and be fair and impartial.

It's critical.

So I think the most that we can do on our Supreme Court is some really lead by example.

And I'm also very happy I meet with student groups.

I'm happy to come here and talk to people and really let people know what we are doing and how we're trying to write that show.

You know, when I made the decision to run for this seat, you have to say to yourself, okay, I'm going to run for this race and for a year I'm not going to walk the dog.

I'm not going to grocery shop.

I'm probably not going to get more than three or 4 hours of sleep a night.

I'm going to let people say really bad things about me that really upset my family.

And I'm just generally not going to be around.

And you make the decision to get into a race like that because you so strongly believe that what happened and in my position what happened and what was going on in our state was just wrong and it was just so important and that we try to get out there and get away from the rubber stamping and the far right extremism.

And that's why I did it.

And hopefully other people will get into those races for the same reasons.

Now, getting into these races, it's not easy.

People say things about you, they tell lies about you.

You have major security risks.

When I was campaigning, we were having strange packages delivered to the house.

I was having threats coming in that were frightening enough that our campaign, out of our campaign dollars, we had to hire private security and we had somebody driving us around.

I mean, I think until probably the last month of the campaign, I was leaving the house on a, you know, either a Friday night or a Saturday morning at about three in the morning and getting home on a Sunday night late.

And I was driving myself and we were in one town in Wisconsin and my people would send me, you know, the schedule and I'd have people meeting me there.

And we were in one small town in Wisconsin and the schedule said, You're not going to be welcome here.

So this this is not being widely advertised.

You'll have law enforcement waiting for you when you arrive.

And then there was a note in the schedule, do not go to this particular gas station in this small town.

Get gas either before or after you're there.

We can't ensure your safety there.

If they recognize you there, we can't insure your safety.

And so and I was just in court a few weeks ago as a victim in circuit court with a death threat that came in.

A young high school student put a firearm on Instagram and threatened to kill me.

They took him out of his class.

He was talked to the police, interviewed him.

They interviewed his parents.

They decided to give him a pass on it.

And two weeks later, he did it again.

So he was there for a criminal case.

So all gets back to, you know, you have to really believe that what you're fighting for is so important that you're going to deal with everything in your life on the back burner for a year.

All these things said about you for a year, and then your physical safety comes into play as well.

So I've talked to a lot of people about would you ever think of running?

They're like, Are you kidding?

You would never think of running.

And so I'd be very curious.

I know that the dean has run for public office and you have other elected officials here.

I'd be very curious to know if anybody else has run, if they've dealt with these kind of problems.

And I think really appreciating the sacrifices that people make to try to do what they think is right.

And in my opinion, what I was trying to do was right.

The ship in the state of Wisconsin, I thought it was so important.

Good afternoon.

We have a text question.

Can you share efforts of the Wisconsin Supreme Court related to access to civil justice and legal aid?

In Wisconsin, for instance, in Texas, the state Supreme Court members are quite active talking with legislature about civil justice funding.

You know, I really can't.

And the reason that I really can't is that I'm so new on the court.

And I just like I said, I just took office in August.

And I've dealt with, you know, the impeachment excuse me, the recusal, learning a new job.

And all of these major cases.

So I know that we have other roles and other roles being out in the community, but what we've done with that type of access, I really can't comment on.

I will say we have the best legal society in the world right over there.

Okay.

I have another text question.

Okay.

We're going to fit in really quickly here across the country.

We see both parties engage in gerrymandering.

Yet this is an area where we all sort of understand that competitive districts are likely best for democracy and the nation.

You've heard the best arguments political parties can offer in favor of partizan map drawing.

Are there are any of those arguments that are compelling to you?

Why is this issue so difficult for our nation?

I don't know why the issue is so difficult, except that people want power.

Right.

But that being said, more than that, I can't comment on because as I've indicated, you know, we just made a decision on gerrymandering and we will potentially have more, you know, gerrymandering cases coming in front of our courts.

So as I've indicated early on, I've got to be hyper careful about how much I can talk about any type of issue.

How about originalism?

Do you do you find that that do you think that that's a legitimate way to interpret the language of a constitu should?

Is it practiced in Wisconsin?

Tell us about originalism.

You know what?

That is so interesting.

You ask that.

I was just at a speech that was given by one of the members of the Canadian Supreme Court.

And the premise of her lecture was that the Constitution grows and changes.

They call it the Tree of Life.

That's what they call their constitution.

And she said, We don't care what those authors thought.

We are looking at it, you know, in light of what's happening today, of course, of course, the drafters, you know, had one set of opinions.

And look at that.

There weren't computers then.

There weren't motor vehicles.

Things should grow and change.

You know, I haven't really thought about originalism in regard to what I am currently doing, but I think it's a really interesting issue.

And I think that when I think back on that lecture that I just heard, there are some very, very compelling arguments.

And thank you to justice pro to it's and Dean Dean Fisher for joining us at the city club today.

Forums like this one are made possible thanks to generous support from individuals like you.

You can learn more about how to become a guardian of free speech at City Club Dawg.

We would also like to welcome guests today, a table hosted by the Cleveland Foundation, Cleveland State College of Law Friends of Dave Nash Stand Out Consulting and the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland next Friday, March 22nd at the City Club.

Dr. Lisa Damour, author and thought leader and adolescent and Child Development, will lead a conversation with author Lawrence Steinberg.

They will discuss how parents can grow together with their children, their teenage years.

What will it take to effectively parent support and build a more effective bond with your young adult child during these challenging times?

You can learn more about this forum and others at City Club, Dawg.

And that brings us to the end of today's forum.

Thank you to our esteemed guests, members and friends of the City Club.

I'm Molly Walsh, and this forum is now adjourned.

For information on upcoming speakers or for podcasts of the City Club, go to City Club, dawg.

Production and distribution of City Club forums and Ideastream Public Media are made possible by PNC and the United Black Fund of Greater Cleveland, Inc..